Post about Ojeriza
- Thread starter CharlieDog
- Start date
Interesting.
I agree with the guy in the 1st half of the blog - there is NO need in this day and age to breed a dog which attacks strangers on their OWN initiative.
That is called a liability, and you can NOT control who owns a fila, so surely in the breeds best interests fila devotees/breeders should be considering this if they do not want them to become a banned breed.
Like he states:
"Every dog that bites means less freedoms for responsible dog owners"
Now, do I think they should be banned? No, I think fila enthusiasts should be taking the care that pitbull owners do to ensure they dogs get a true representation and breeding for sound temperament.
He is NOT slamming ALL filas... he is targetting those breeders who breed for AGGRESSIVE responses to strangers.
At least, it seems that way in the 1st half.. the update is a little more extreme...
I agree with the guy in the 1st half of the blog - there is NO need in this day and age to breed a dog which attacks strangers on their OWN initiative.
That is called a liability, and you can NOT control who owns a fila, so surely in the breeds best interests fila devotees/breeders should be considering this if they do not want them to become a banned breed.
Like he states:
"Every dog that bites means less freedoms for responsible dog owners"
Now, do I think they should be banned? No, I think fila enthusiasts should be taking the care that pitbull owners do to ensure they dogs get a true representation and breeding for sound temperament.
He is NOT slamming ALL filas... he is targetting those breeders who breed for AGGRESSIVE responses to strangers.
At least, it seems that way in the 1st half.. the update is a little more extreme...
I agree with nearly all that you say. But some may see a distinction that is not at all relevant.
Pitbulls that are "true representations" are not human aggressive. The author argues that at least one faction feels that Filas must be human aggressive in order to be Filas, and that this somehow justifies their breeding.
Allowing the unregulated breeding of purposely human aggressive dogs is absolutely irresponsible in modern society. I do not see how it matters if doing so preserves "true representations" or not. A vicious dog is a vicious dog.
The most ignorant response is from those who insist on the "slippery slope" argument for everything. That is, "If we do not allow everyone to purposely breed powerful dogs for human aggression...then we soon only be allowed to own golden retrievers with their teeth removed."
That is not just ignorant, its nuts. Somehow these people are willing to depend on their neighbors to have LOTS of sense when it comes to breeding vicious animals, and non at all when it comes to understanding the difference between a hair trigger aggressive deadly weapon with "issues" and a GSD when it comes to regulation.
We cannot own tigers, but that does hasn't threatened house-cats (with full sets of claws!). There are some thing that are just too dangerous (like hand grenades and nuclear bombs) that we cannot just assume that everyone in society will use them wisely. Some people CAN own tigers safely...and those folks need to be carefully licensed.
Pitbulls that are "true representations" are not human aggressive. The author argues that at least one faction feels that Filas must be human aggressive in order to be Filas, and that this somehow justifies their breeding.
Allowing the unregulated breeding of purposely human aggressive dogs is absolutely irresponsible in modern society. I do not see how it matters if doing so preserves "true representations" or not. A vicious dog is a vicious dog.
The most ignorant response is from those who insist on the "slippery slope" argument for everything. That is, "If we do not allow everyone to purposely breed powerful dogs for human aggression...then we soon only be allowed to own golden retrievers with their teeth removed."
That is not just ignorant, its nuts. Somehow these people are willing to depend on their neighbors to have LOTS of sense when it comes to breeding vicious animals, and non at all when it comes to understanding the difference between a hair trigger aggressive deadly weapon with "issues" and a GSD when it comes to regulation.
We cannot own tigers, but that does hasn't threatened house-cats (with full sets of claws!). There are some thing that are just too dangerous (like hand grenades and nuclear bombs) that we cannot just assume that everyone in society will use them wisely. Some people CAN own tigers safely...and those folks need to be carefully licensed.
Yes - you're correct with the temperament thing re. pits vs filas.
I actually find it quite scary that a breed body would encourage breeding for this trait.
For every 1 decent owner/breeder you know, and I mean KNOW, there are 12 crap ones. Who will be reading that with glee and encouraging their dogs to be mentalists.
POOF
There goes the fila - hope you're ready to wave goodbye.
And it was nothing to do with the people who were breeding "soft" filas........
I actually find it quite scary that a breed body would encourage breeding for this trait.
For every 1 decent owner/breeder you know, and I mean KNOW, there are 12 crap ones. Who will be reading that with glee and encouraging their dogs to be mentalists.
POOF
There goes the fila - hope you're ready to wave goodbye.
And it was nothing to do with the people who were breeding "soft" filas........
I will disagree with this.
To me, this needs to be an issue about ethics, *not* law. I don't believe in laws telling people what dogs they can breed or own and how they can do it.
The comparison with tigers is a very poor one. Tigers are and always have been *wild* animals. Fila are and always have been domesticated ones. VERY big difference there.
I think the issue here needs to come down to those that breed and own these dogs and how good of stewards they are to the breed. As the breed is becoming more well known, the future of the breed depends on how carefully breeders select homes for their pups.
Unfortunately many breeds that were once hard to find are showing up more and more. I've met 2 Cane Corsos in our area, and in classifieds in Chicago papers there are often ads for Cane Corsos, Pressas, Dogue de Bordeaux,etc. Sadly, I'm sure filas are not far behind.
If what the author of this blog is saying is untrue, then there needs to be more info on the web regarding what *is* the truth, because honestly, what he states in the first part of his blog is pretty consistent with most of the articles I've read.
To me, this needs to be an issue about ethics, *not* law. I don't believe in laws telling people what dogs they can breed or own and how they can do it.
The comparison with tigers is a very poor one. Tigers are and always have been *wild* animals. Fila are and always have been domesticated ones. VERY big difference there.
I think the issue here needs to come down to those that breed and own these dogs and how good of stewards they are to the breed. As the breed is becoming more well known, the future of the breed depends on how carefully breeders select homes for their pups.
Unfortunately many breeds that were once hard to find are showing up more and more. I've met 2 Cane Corsos in our area, and in classifieds in Chicago papers there are often ads for Cane Corsos, Pressas, Dogue de Bordeaux,etc. Sadly, I'm sure filas are not far behind.
If what the author of this blog is saying is untrue, then there needs to be more info on the web regarding what *is* the truth, because honestly, what he states in the first part of his blog is pretty consistent with most of the articles I've read.
This happened to a certain extent with pressas. There was that incident where the crazy couple allowed dogs they knew were aggressive (the whole situation was just weird) to get out of their apartment and kill their neighbor. Up until that moment the nation as a whole had no idea what the breed was. After that, apartments began banning the breed, insurance issues began to pop up with the breed, and some towns ever worked them into their BSL.
Filas have already been quite lucky to escape that kind of scrutiny when that actor's employee ended up dead, whether they were involved or not.
Filas have already been quite lucky to escape that kind of scrutiny when that actor's employee ended up dead, whether they were involved or not.
Dogs too were once "wild animals".
While there is controversy about how domestication came about, it is quite certain that the very first domesticated dog/wolves that may have been suitable as hunting partners who never "shared the cave" would not today be suitable as suburban companion animals. Wolves, and wolf/dog hybrids are banned in most communities for that reason.
According to the dictionary, domesticated means to adapt an animal to live in intimate association with and to the advantage of human beings
The author of the article argues quite convincingly that it is not to the advantage of humans in the U.S. to own dogs bred specifically for their enthusiasm for running down and violently attacking people/slaves (even if their might have been a purpose for this hundreds of years ago in South America).
I have no idea whether his facts are right, or whether Fila's accurately fit this description, but his argument makes very good sense.
While there is controversy about how domestication came about, it is quite certain that the very first domesticated dog/wolves that may have been suitable as hunting partners who never "shared the cave" would not today be suitable as suburban companion animals. Wolves, and wolf/dog hybrids are banned in most communities for that reason.
According to the dictionary, domesticated means to adapt an animal to live in intimate association with and to the advantage of human beings
The author of the article argues quite convincingly that it is not to the advantage of humans in the U.S. to own dogs bred specifically for their enthusiasm for running down and violently attacking people/slaves (even if their might have been a purpose for this hundreds of years ago in South America).
I have no idea whether his facts are right, or whether Fila's accurately fit this description, but his argument makes very good sense.
So who gets to decide which dogs are suitable for which people to own in the modern day? You?
Everyone has their own ideas for what they want in a dog. Personally, I prefer a dog that would let Jack the Ripper into the house, because I'm not someone that into having very protective dogs. However, if someone wants a dog with hardcore Ojeriza, they are the ones taking on the responsibility and the liability, not me--it's not my business.
If you are not even sure if his facts are right, then don't you think that it's a tad hasty to jump to conclusions about whether or not people should own Filas?
Everyone has their own ideas for what they want in a dog. Personally, I prefer a dog that would let Jack the Ripper into the house, because I'm not someone that into having very protective dogs. However, if someone wants a dog with hardcore Ojeriza, they are the ones taking on the responsibility and the liability, not me--it's not my business.
If you are not even sure if his facts are right, then don't you think that it's a tad hasty to jump to conclusions about whether or not people should own Filas?
Last edited:
It's not about owning filas, or them being wary of strangers or even protective.
I think the key word is AGGRESSION.
If your fila is protective and TRAINED to attack on cue, then it is no different from other guarding dogs.
It's when a dog takes it upon itself to attack with no command that scares me.
And the fact that this body is endorsing this behaviour.
I think the key word is AGGRESSION.
If your fila is protective and TRAINED to attack on cue, then it is no different from other guarding dogs.
It's when a dog takes it upon itself to attack with no command that scares me.
And the fact that this body is endorsing this behaviour.
Well, when there is discussion from the blog author and a poster about whether people should be *allowed* to have the dogs then it does become, at least partly, about owning Filas. Unfortunately, when many people see something they don't like their first thought is "BAN!"
That having been said, the idea of a dog making it's own decision about attacking is something that makes me uncomfortable and is a huge liability.
That having been said, the idea of a dog making it's own decision about attacking is something that makes me uncomfortable and is a huge liability.
I am not entirely sure people SHOULD be allowed to own dogs which take it upon themselves to attack.
Because to me that SCREAMS liability and would result most defiantely in the breed being banned - which noone wants.
Sadly the majority of people who would be attracted to a dog like that are gangsta type thugs for a large part.
The decent honest folk will be pushed aside as hoardes of irresponsible fools queue up to get their "attack dogs" of the irresponsible breeders.
Can't anyone see how much of a negative effect promoting that drive is to the fila breed as a whole?
Because to me that SCREAMS liability and would result most defiantely in the breed being banned - which noone wants.
Sadly the majority of people who would be attracted to a dog like that are gangsta type thugs for a large part.
The decent honest folk will be pushed aside as hoardes of irresponsible fools queue up to get their "attack dogs" of the irresponsible breeders.
Can't anyone see how much of a negative effect promoting that drive is to the fila breed as a whole?
That drive IS part of what makes a Fila a Fila. Period.
And 100% of all of you who talk about it and have never lived with Filas are talking as if you know something about ojeriza. Which you don't. The discussion is about as intelligent as the one about Dobermans having brains that swell and make them turn on their owners or APBTs having locking jaws.
And, for the last goddamned time it's not fscking aggression. :wall:
And 100% of all of you who talk about it and have never lived with Filas are talking as if you know something about ojeriza. Which you don't. The discussion is about as intelligent as the one about Dobermans having brains that swell and make them turn on their owners or APBTs having locking jaws.
And, for the last goddamned time it's not fscking aggression. :wall:
Actually, it can be proven scientifically that Doberman's brain do not swell and pit bulls jaws do not lock, so there really is no comparison. In addition, you don't see breeders claiming locking jaws and swelling brains as something they breed for.
When you take on a large, powerful dog you take on a big responsibility to the breed. Part of that is education. When I hear people say that pit bull's jaws lock I don't tell them their idiots and walk away, I explain the truth.
If you think people are getting it wrong, educate and enlighten. Just sitting there and telling people that they can't possibly know what ojeriza is because they haven't lived with a Fila while refusing to discuss it further is unproductive and an attitude that will only hurt the breed and peoples' chances to own them in the future.
When you take on a large, powerful dog you take on a big responsibility to the breed. Part of that is education. When I hear people say that pit bull's jaws lock I don't tell them their idiots and walk away, I explain the truth.
If you think people are getting it wrong, educate and enlighten. Just sitting there and telling people that they can't possibly know what ojeriza is because they haven't lived with a Fila while refusing to discuss it further is unproductive and an attitude that will only hurt the breed and peoples' chances to own them in the future.
Like cursing the darkness rather than bothering to turn on the light....
If Filas fall into the same hands as pit bulls have, which is very likely, then you'd better get used to repeating the same information over and over and over if you want to continue to have the right to own the breed. Most people with pits and rots and other "marked" breeds spend their lives educating others about their dogs--it comes with the territory.
As far as handing people information--what info has been handed exactly on this thread? It's just been you telling people they're wrong and idiots and the articles they read are wrong--no actual information at all.
IMHO you have no right to bitch about ignorance if you refuse to educate.
If Filas fall into the same hands as pit bulls have, which is very likely, then you'd better get used to repeating the same information over and over and over if you want to continue to have the right to own the breed. Most people with pits and rots and other "marked" breeds spend their lives educating others about their dogs--it comes with the territory.
As far as handing people information--what info has been handed exactly on this thread? It's just been you telling people they're wrong and idiots and the articles they read are wrong--no actual information at all.
IMHO you have no right to bitch about ignorance if you refuse to educate.
Well, do you have any links, or do we have to search old threads for an hour?
If it is not aggression, then I would genuinely like to know *what* it is because most of the Fila info I've found online states that it is s severe hatred of strangers and goes on to describe something that sounds very much like aggression....
If it is not aggression, then I would genuinely like to know *what* it is because most of the Fila info I've found online states that it is s severe hatred of strangers and goes on to describe something that sounds very much like aggression....
I'm going to jump in here as I know almost NOTHING about Filas other than the stereotypes and of course the stories here on Chaz. Not being one to follow stereotypes, I try to absorb what I can from those who I consider "experts".
Renee, your audience is always different, so it may feel like you're repeating yourself but there is always someone listening who the information is COMPLETELY new to
Renee, your audience is always different, so it may feel like you're repeating yourself but there is always someone listening who the information is COMPLETELY new to